The Role Of Self Defense In Women's Lives
illuminex
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Fascinating article</div> <a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html' target='_blank'>Linky.</a>
And here's the full text:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Right to Self-Defense
Saturday, July 16, 2005
By Wendy McElroy
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.
The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.
In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.
The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck.
In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the Appeals level.
What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?
Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Later court decisions have concurred.
Losers: anti-domestic violence advocates and women's groups, such as the National Association of Women Lawyers, failed to establish that restraining orders were constitutional entitlements. If they had succeeded, the enforcement of such orders would have been guaranteed by due process. Failure to enforce them would have been grounds for a lawsuit against the police, a precedent that local officials feared would flood them with expensive litigation.
Public analysis of Rock v. Gonzales has been largely defined by these two opposing positions.
A third position cries out: Given the court's position that the police are not obliged to protect us, responsible adults need the ability to defend themselves. Thus, no law or policy should impede the access to gun ownership.
Responsible adults — both male and female — have both a right and a need to defend themselves and their families, with lethal force if necessary. If domestic violence advocates had focused on putting a gun in Jessica's hand and training her to use it, then the three Gonzales children might still be alive. After all, Jessica knew where her husband was. Indeed, she informed the police repeatedly of his location.
Of course, the Gonzales case — in and of itself — presents difficulties for the use of armed force by private citizens. Would the same police who believed Simon Gonzales was not dangerous have believed Jessica to be justified in picking up a gun to protect her children from him? Would the police have charged her for use of a weapon? Regardless, these sticky debates would probably be taking place in the presence of three living children and not three dead ones.
Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.
When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, "Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day."
In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.
That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and women's groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.
The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.
In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica Gonzales' three children would have been safer with a mother who was armed and educated in gun use.
The clear message of Gonzales bears repeating because you will not hear it elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect individuals who, therefore, should defend themselves. The content of state laws does not matter; by Colorado State law, the police are required to "use every reasonable means to enforce a protection order." The Supreme Court has ruled and that's that.
In the wake of Gonzales, every anti-domestic violence advocate should advise victims — male or female — to learn self-defense. They should lobby for the repeal of any law or policy that hinders responsible gun ownership.
The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, basically, here in the United States, police protection from a private individual is not a constitutional right. The government leaves responsibility for self-defense against an individual up to its citizens, not its police force.
Opinions?
And here's the full text:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Right to Self-Defense
Saturday, July 16, 2005
By Wendy McElroy
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.
The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.
In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.
The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck.
In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the Appeals level.
What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?
Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Later court decisions have concurred.
Losers: anti-domestic violence advocates and women's groups, such as the National Association of Women Lawyers, failed to establish that restraining orders were constitutional entitlements. If they had succeeded, the enforcement of such orders would have been guaranteed by due process. Failure to enforce them would have been grounds for a lawsuit against the police, a precedent that local officials feared would flood them with expensive litigation.
Public analysis of Rock v. Gonzales has been largely defined by these two opposing positions.
A third position cries out: Given the court's position that the police are not obliged to protect us, responsible adults need the ability to defend themselves. Thus, no law or policy should impede the access to gun ownership.
Responsible adults — both male and female — have both a right and a need to defend themselves and their families, with lethal force if necessary. If domestic violence advocates had focused on putting a gun in Jessica's hand and training her to use it, then the three Gonzales children might still be alive. After all, Jessica knew where her husband was. Indeed, she informed the police repeatedly of his location.
Of course, the Gonzales case — in and of itself — presents difficulties for the use of armed force by private citizens. Would the same police who believed Simon Gonzales was not dangerous have believed Jessica to be justified in picking up a gun to protect her children from him? Would the police have charged her for use of a weapon? Regardless, these sticky debates would probably be taking place in the presence of three living children and not three dead ones.
Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.
When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, "Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day."
In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.
That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and women's groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.
The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.
In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica Gonzales' three children would have been safer with a mother who was armed and educated in gun use.
The clear message of Gonzales bears repeating because you will not hear it elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect individuals who, therefore, should defend themselves. The content of state laws does not matter; by Colorado State law, the police are required to "use every reasonable means to enforce a protection order." The Supreme Court has ruled and that's that.
In the wake of Gonzales, every anti-domestic violence advocate should advise victims — male or female — to learn self-defense. They should lobby for the repeal of any law or policy that hinders responsible gun ownership.
The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, basically, here in the United States, police protection from a private individual is not a constitutional right. The government leaves responsibility for self-defense against an individual up to its citizens, not its police force.
Opinions?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
My guess is this sentence was a nessesity to prevent the creation of a precedence (correct term?).
On the other hand, its not really reasonable to leave the police open to lawsuits every time they make a poor allocation-of-force decision. So this really had to be done that way. It would be very dangerous to create a precedent of allowing people to sue the police whenever the police failed to prevent a crime.
However--I like this guy's analysis of the secondary effects of the ruling. If the police arent ultimately responsible for preventing a crime against you, then you should have the ability to prevent that crime yourself. Seems perfectly logical to me. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally, I have no desire to own a gun, even for self defense. But I do have a sword, and I think thats a much better solution. People should be able to carry swords around for self defense. Swords don't "accidently" kill people the way guns sometimes do--if you hit someone with a sword, its because you were trying to hit them with it. And they have a great intimidation factor against anyone not armed with a gun himself. Would you come attack me if I had my Katana pointed at you? I think not.
Besides, swords are more fun. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways as I stated there,
in terms of police protection for restraining orders.
well, there are MANY thousands of people, with some sort of restrictive order, a restraining order, ex parte order, etc. many of them are filed for trivial reasons but they are granted by judges b/c its more of a "cover your own ****" type of deal for the judge just in case one claim may actually be legitimate. Many claims are good, many are bad. Many people come in an grossly exagerate the circumstances to obtain an order.
Some restrictive orders can be filed and set without even notifiying the other person in it.
Also many people on BOTH sides violate orders. The victim will try to make contact with the person they dont want to see....
Its really a big mess.
it would be outragous to expect the police to basically have to provide "body guard" type service to all the thousands of people who have these type of orders. which by the way are usually over civil matters, not criminal issues that police take care of.
What are we supposed to do stand guard out side every persons house b/c they have a personal issue with someone else?
If the police become aware of someone trying to violate an order etc they will make every attempt to stop the person or even arrest them if a violation of a court order takes place. But besides that its very much a civil matter in most respects and its up to the people involved to directly handel it as such.
Assume you're being mugged:
Your assailant is unarmed. Unlikely but possibly. A sword would help you here, assuming you know how to use it and he isn't skilled in disarming you, in which case you will have succeeded in nothing but outfitting him with a weapon.
Your assailant is armed with a sword or other close-combat weapon himself. The safe assumption (and remember, your priority should not be to "pwn" anyone, but to get away unscathed) is that he is more skilled than you, so running away is the better option. A sword is heavy and will only hinder you. Therefore, carrying a sword is a bad idea.
Your assailant is armed with a gun. He completely outclasses you. In terms of "fighting power" his stakes on you are so high that it doesn't matter whether you have a sword or not: If it comes to fighting you will be injured or dead. If you are unarmed, chances are that your assailant will just relieve you of your material posessions and let you go. Or he might shoot you, but there's nothing a sword can do to change that.
If you have a sword, however, somebody who would otherwise have let you go might feel so threatened by it that he'll shoot you.
A sword is worthless for self-defence. The only weapon that is worth anything is a gun.
And remember, a gun can <u>never protect people,</u> it can only kill them.
I'd say that a knife is a great weapon for self-defense against muggers, rapists, etc... It can be concealed much more easily than a gun, and you get the perfect opportunity to stick it in to him when he's going for your wallet. That can either disable him, or shock him long enough for you to grab the gun or knock it away and make a break for it. Though I don't mean to sound like an "interweb tuff guy", I would probably either go for his heart, his groin (assuming that the person mugging you is male), his spine, or his neck. If that's not really an option or if I'm not thinking right in the heat of the moment, I'd probably do the "stab and run away" thing.
Assume you're being mugged:
Your assailant is unarmed. Unlikely but possibly. A sword would help you here, assuming you know how to use it and he isn't skilled in disarming you, in which case you will have succeeded in nothing but outfitting him with a weapon.
Your assailant is armed with a sword or other close-combat weapon himself. The safe assumption (and remember, your priority should not be to "pwn" anyone, but to get away unscathed) is that he is more skilled than you, so running away is the better option. A sword is heavy and will only hinder you. Therefore, carrying a sword is a bad idea.
Your assailant is armed with a gun. He completely outclasses you. In terms of "fighting power" his stakes on you are so high that it doesn't matter whether you have a sword or not: If it comes to fighting you will be injured or dead. If you are unarmed, chances are that your assailant will just relieve you of your material posessions and let you go. Or he might shoot you, but there's nothing a sword can do to change that.
If you have a sword, however, somebody who would otherwise have let you go might feel so threatened by it that he'll shoot you.
A sword is worthless for self-defence. The only weapon that is worth anything is a gun.
And remember, a gun can <u>never protect people,</u> it can only kill them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Screw guns... hand grenades and bazookas are the way to go.
If there were say, more than one mugger, now you can take them down ALL AT ONCE. Guarenteed!
Guns don't protect people, but shrapenel sure does!
Depends on if you are any good with it and also other factors like your size and strength. A gun is much better than a sword for the simple reason it's much easier to use effectively.
Depends on if you are any good with it and also other factors like your size and strength. A gun is much better than a sword for the simple reason it's much easier to use effectively. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me pets his US Fencing Association membership card affectionately.
The police have no legal obligation to ride in like the cavalry when you dial 911 and curl up in a corner, hoping to live till they arrive. Now, don't confuse that as a bash to policemen, I mean lets face it: the vast majority of them of them are good folks, and when someone needs help they will bend over backwards to give it. But on that same token, a precedent like the one this woman's lawsuit would set would Destroy (big D here.) law enforcement in general.
On top of that you factor in the fact that a deadly confrontation, a kidnapping, a mugging, etc. can all be measured in seconds, but a mere 3 mile drive in a squad car at 100mph is still well over a minute, going in a straight line, if they started the instant the attack began and had nothing in thier way driving, and it's beginning to look a little less than promising isn't it? The police, while i'm sure many of them wish it were otherwise, play the role of crime scene janitor rather than the cavalry more often than not.
It is my OPINION, that anyone who is physically able to do so (ESPECIALLY members of the fairer sex.) go find a way to fight, and develop the mindset to use it if you or your loved ones ever need to be protected. Karate, firearms, fencing, knife fighting, hand grenades, A freaking sharp stick I Do Not Care as long as you have the will to use that if push comes to shove. They all can quite readily kill an attacker if that level of response is required, god forbid.
aren't obligated to help us. And also, if the police play more of a crime scene janitor role rather than cavalry, then there is a very good reason to own a weapon and train it's use. NOW says guns are bad, but they don't mention using guns as self-defense.
Like Code9, you should probably go get yourself a weapon and train how to use it responsibly. If the police can't get there in time, atleast you have a back up to hold off attackers. This then tells me that maybe anti-domestic violence groups should start supporting self-defense with weapons. When the police can't get there in time what are you to do? NOW can't hold the same ideal when a situation such as this comes where the police don't react. They need to realize the importance of self-defence...
On the topic of weapons to use, the shotgun is fairly useful, the attack probably won't be far away enough that the shot don't reach him. On the other hand, it would kill the attacker. Maybe small caliber pistol??? I have to say, swords are very cool to use though...
I've got another convert! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just make sure the laws in your state allow you to carry swords first. I bought my swords in California, where it was perfectly legal. Then I moved to Arkansas, and the state laws here don't let me carry them anymore. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As to what they should buy as far as weaponry goes...I don't know. It's not a question I can answer. I would however tell any concerned person to try a various selection of firearms, a few less than lethal alternatives such as a baton, or perhaps a good full tanged knife, dagger, or sword. But above all, practice with their decision.
Although, I wouldn't recommend carrying a weapon openly, regardless of wether it's a firearm or not. People nowadays are very fearful and panicky it seems, and theres no reason to cause yourself more police interaction than you really have to because you scared the sheep. In this vein, cxwf gives sound advice. Check your laws.
I had a big long rant written up about comments like aegeri`s, but in the interests of not writing a novel again: It doesn't matter what you use. Just whatever it is, hand, knife, sword, gun, tuba launcher, learn to use it, and try to develop the WILL to use it if you ever get backed into a corner. Because without both of those things, regardless of what you are holding, it did you about as much good as a third nipple.
Crotalus: I'd suggest a good semi automatic rifle at home..perhaps an AR15? A sub-compact sized pistol and an assited opening folding knife when out of the house. The idea that he might be dead when the bullets hit him would be somewhat intentional however, places on people that you shoot to make them stop attacking you also tend to kill them. In any case worry about YOU living through a SD situation before you worry yourself over their wounds.
i have done so. it's rewarding. makes me feel safer myself, as well, knowing that people can defend themselves even when i'm not around.
Carrying weapons? Stopping crimes yourselves? Are you all mad? I'm sure that each and every one of you would be perfectly responsible with those powers and always act in the best way (and that is debatable) but there are plenty of people that would abuse all of these privileges and make life worse for everyone.
How exactly did the police screw up? The kids died but the police did their job. What. Do you really think they are supposed to arrest some guy <b>just</b> because the ex-wife says so? Imagine if you go out with some girl and she turns out to be a psycho, do you want to be arrested because she's told the police you are 'capable of violence'?
Here's a hint, we are <b>ALL</b> capable of violence, giving every person a weapon just makes this worse. It is the mind set "I must take the law in to my own hands", this attitude that causes people to kidnap kids, to kill others, to give in and do the most obvious (and most stupid thing) their irrational minds come up with when under stress.
So lets say all of these changes that you are talking about come in to affect (or an average of those changes anyway). What was the mother supposed to do? Kick the husbands door down and chop his head off? Shoot him? And what defence would she have for those actions? "Well honestly officer, he was thinking some really nasty thoughts and I just <i>know</i> he was capable of carrying them out".
Less weapons not more, that is the way forward.
How about because, "I have a restraining order against him and he just kidnapped my kids"? That good enough for you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Less weapons not more, that is the way forward.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would work...except...the first people to give up their weapons are always the people who weren't going to commit violence anyway. And the people who might have been willing to commit violence before are still clinging to their weapons, trying to avoid giving them up, and all of their potential victims are now unarmed. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Dammit, CMEast, they're onto us.
Move to plan B.
Now, maybe I simply missed the post, but I don't recall reading anyone saying that anyone go and chop off thier ex`s head with a rusty coathanger because they were called fat once.
Nor do I recall anyone saying the police screwed up. In fact, I read over the thread again and see everyone pretty much in agreement that FORCING police to provide 24/7 armed protection (or similar) for every restraining order, or allowing lawsuits like this to go through is bloody retarded and for reasons already mentioned. Perhaps I missed that post as well?
Now, to the "Are you people mad?!" question, why don't I turn that around on you for a moment. Are YOU mad?! Just physically, do you know how poorly matched the average woman is with the average man in upper body strength alone?! Sure lady, you can fight off this guy who outweighs you by 30-40 pounds, don't need any sort of martial training, or weapon to do it either! Because the TRUE solution to being raped or assaulted is to REASON with them, yes, that's it, you can talk them out of what they are doing after they smash you in the head with a brick, that has a GREAT success rate!
Remember kids, a woman raped and strangled with her pantyhose is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet!
Ok, serious mode now: There are non-violent measures to protect yourself against crime, and there are the extremely violent measures, such as firearms, to protect yourself when the non-violent measures fail. Again, <b>IN NO WAY AM I, NOR HAVE I SEEN EVIDENCE OF ANYONE ELSE HERE, SIMPLY SAYING HUNT PEOPLE DOWN AND SHOOT THEM IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO.</b> I figured anyone with an IQ higher than GWB`s would understand this. I see now that I was incorrect so I have typed it in all caps and bold, for easy viewing.
Cxwf makes an excellent point as well. Criminals break laws. That is why they are criminals. And yes, sometimes they even have the gall to break weapons laws as well. The shock and horror. But weapons laws, for example, WILL however disarm those who follow the laws of the land (Read: The people the bad guys prey on), so I wonder who you are trying to help by implying that the GOOD guys should voluntarily make themselves defenseless? Or for that matter, those who would pass laws against the ownership and/or carrying of weapons, not just firearms. From where I sit it doesn't look like the average joe/jill.
Now, again, BUYING A GUN IS NOT THE END ALL BE ALL OF PERSONAL SAFETY. When you combine it with even simply being aware of your surroundings, avoiding walking through bad parts of town at night, common sense stuff, THEN you not only avoid the vast majority of problems you'd likely encounter with the criminal world, but you have a response to a deadly situation if that ever comes along, again, god forbid. If you do not want someone to get the wrong idea and think that picking up a firearm gives them a license to kill, fine. Teach them otherwise, but it is just as wrong and just as repulsive for you to force someone to NOT carry a weapon as it is for me to require them to. It's their life, let THEM make the choice, simply educate them so they make the right one.
On another note: CMEast, I cannot monday night quarterback the woman in this particular case without more information. Assuming you read the article at all, the details on the kidnapping itself is rather sketchy. Simply having a weapon present on her part MAY or MAY NOT have helped, or even changed the situation at all because, as I have said over and over now, self defense, or defense of ones family, is NOT just about combat. But if combat occurs due to failure of non violent approaches, then bad things are going to happen. Who they happen to and how bad is , to a point, up to you.
How about because, "I have a restraining order against him and he just kidnapped my kids"? That good enough for you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Less weapons not more, that is the way forward.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would work...except...the first people to give up their weapons are always the people who weren't going to commit violence anyway. And the people who might have been willing to commit violence before are still clinging to their weapons, trying to avoid giving them up, and all of their potential victims are now unarmed. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No that isn't good enough at all. Someone that kidnaps their kids could just be desperate to see them, not feel able to keep them etc. It normally shows that they love them. I wouldn't put it together with killing them no. It certainly isn't enough grounds to arrest him.
Oh yeah, that makes sense, we'll all be safe if we ALL carry weapons. Worst argument ever. Weapons simply escalate the violence. Raise the stakes. It's stupid.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No that isn't good enough at all. Someone that kidnaps their kids could just be desperate to see them, not feel able to keep them etc. It normally shows that they love them. I wouldn't put it together with killing them no. It certainly isn't enough grounds to arrest him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry if you feel that way. And no, killing someone like this is typically NOT warranted....that is unless the kidnapper decides to kill the mother/father for "ruining their life and taking away their children", or reasonably believes that if they manage to take the children out of the home that they will be harmed....but on the other hand, doing something like...say....violating the terms of a divorce, and kidnapping your children, CAN be grounds for an arrest yes.
Though, considering that a legal use of deadly force involves the person claiming self defense being threatened by, or in the process of being: either raped, given life threatening injuries or made DEAD, i'd like to know how you could escalate the situation further. In that kind of situation someone is getting hurt and the stakes are: Raped, maimed or dead. If you draw a weapon, the stakes become: Raped, maimed or dead. One can choose to resist or they can hold out your hands and take whatever comes their way. Now, YOU can pull a gun on someone for something as trivial as too much ketchup on your hamburger, and you would promptly be locked up for it. Some of us, and a large majority of those who actually carry weapons, realize that combat is the LAST line of defense, not the first. It is the big freaking red button that you start hitting over and over when you are about to get killed.
as per we should all carry guns...only stupid people do,but smart people carry more.The only way to convince a fool crunked up on PCP,dope,Crack,speed,and everyother kinda of drug only understands 1 thing:gotta get more money for drugs".So he holds you up with a generic 9mm he got off the chinese down at the docks...if he's seen any action movie,he'll understand bigger is better,you pull something big and bulky,weather or not it shoots is a different matter,and he'll think twice about pulling his trigger first...stupid people only understand simple things...you try to tell him this tiny little pistol can blast a hole in him the size of texas and he'll act like you botched your d20 roll like a nerd with a habit of doing so...
short and to the point as well,simply "elimanateing" guns doesn't mean you stop crimes...you just makes criminals have to get smarter.Most crimes,as in random hold ups,serial killings,etc. are commited with illegal weapons...so even if you outlaw guns HERE...that just means the illgal weapons importing busisness just became a bigger economy then the porn industry...As well,the day they outlaw guns,is the day I pack up and move to japan...because that's MASSIVE infringement on the bill o' rights...that would also happen to be the day america goes dictator under gore (no offence...)
but wait...alot more deaths happen via cars then via guns...so why not outlaw cars as well...they're alot easier to get,require no "ammo" and you can get off with man slaughter like getting a reduced sentence for being the judge's daughter and getting caught drunk driveing...very easy..."My brakes failed!" "my foot slipped" "my steering column is messed up" all can be used to prove man slaughter with a car...but wait...what bout crossbows?There's no such thing besides concrete armor that stops a crossbow bolt...so why not ban crossbows,with modern day tech. we can make auto loading automatic crossbows...they can also be a decent size,folded up,to fit in a bookbag for transport to killing areas...and they leave no trace of what the bolt was fired from,so no gun marking traceing...so why not bows and crossbows as well.
but,a blackpowder cannon can sometimes shoot farther then a regular rifle,and with the right settings and all they can be more accurate...hell,rig up a nice mortar shell and you got an anti-tank shell if made right...
but think about this,sure you might die...but what about the U.S.'s growing population...would you rather live in a nice place with everything you want,or let a poor,starveing,homeless immigrant looking for some freedom live here in peace compared to his third world shathole...but the **** of a criminal might also die as a result,and look!You've cleared earth of another bad person,and you've cleared space for another immigrant <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> good for you!
My Opinion?
Come into my house uninvited, I'll kindly ask you to leave.
Come BACK into my house, I'll escourt you off the property and lock the door.
Break into my house, I'll break your face.
Break into my house with a gun, I'll shoot to protect myself.
Break into my house and threaten, in ANY way, my parents or brother, I'll kill you.
Depends on if you are any good with it and also other factors like your size and strength. A gun is much better than a sword for the simple reason it's much easier to use effectively. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good Lord I envy you.
------------
As far as this goes, how is it not within her rights to sue the police since, well, her children are dead and it's because the Police didn't take her seriously. Is there something I'm not seeing here? Why didn't they go check it out. The husband wasn't supposed to have the kids, and I hate to say it, but the fact that the kids are dead proves that.
Any idiot can also disarm you and turn your gun against you.
Plus, do you really keep an armed gun in easy reach, where small hands can find it?
Do you THINK a murderer / burglur is going to sit by while you go "Wait, gotta get my ammo" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, I don't THINK so.
Now, you keep a 6 foot, 150x folded steel Katana in it's sheath above your headboard (positioned so it can't FALL from it's sheath) and you got quick, efficient protection in easy reach that can be kept OUTSIDE the reach of small fingers (keep it nailed to the wall by it's sheath's binding cord out of their reach)
Oh, and another thing
a sword is relatively SILENT compared to a gunshot.
You have the choice to take responsibility for your own protection, or you can continue to delegate that responsibility to others. Either way you go, YOU are the one who gets to live with the consequences, so I urge you to think very long and hard about it regardless of which choice you make.
And bullet, regardless of the weapon in question, do more than hang it out of reach. (Come on folks, how many times did your parents putting something higher than you could reach EVER stop you for a moment longer than it took for you to figure out a way to climb up to it? Not many? Didn't think so. Lock em up, carry them on you or weapon-proof the child. Or all of the above. Don't underestimate a childs curiosity, it may get HIM killed where weapons are concerned. On another note, if a child could say sneak in while you are sleeping, what makes you think a burglar couldn't? Perhaps it would be best to rethink keeping weaponry out and unsecured in that case. Or at least get a good door.)
I had to dig up my old password and account just to quote this quote (oh, the hilarity! Quoting a quote! An excercise in post-modernism unlike the world, least of all anyone desperate enough to delve into this post, has ever seen before).
If the police are not there to protect me, what are they doing? If, indeed, they are simply nothing more than crime scene janitors (C.S.J., a sub-division of C.S.I., with better benefits and dental care), are they simply waiting for the next murder while on duty? And they aren't all detectives, who are the ones, as I understand it, crack these cases on a weekly basis on (taken from television). Are the <i>law enforcement</i> officers there just to make sure nobody crosses that cool yellow tape, to clean up what's left of the victims of the latest homicidal gamer whose WoW account was killed? (Oh, the delicious <i>pun</i>!)
Yes, the quote is out of context. Yes, I can guess that there are laws over there, across that vast ocean, that ensure police... persons will lend their helping hand to you if they manage to catch a glimpse of you running away from your enraged neighbour with that huge chainsaw of his.
And, yet, that quote feels so wrong on so many levels I can not possibly even begin to translate those feelings into a concise written form still making sense whilst sober and not under the influence of, possibly several, hallucinogenics.
Moving on, however, I'll try my best to add something worthwhile of reading into this discussion (if it merits such a description).
I also feel it necessary to ensure that every time a police officer commits even the slightest of blunders civilians do not immediately rise up on the barricades (imagining themselves to be in some Delacroix painting), suing everyone from the officer to their own grandparents.
The article itself leaves a lot to be desired. My quick read left me with the image that the children were actually kidnapped, the father having no right to them. Wouldn't this be something the police need to act on? Or did the restraining order simply cover the mother and the father? Oh, reading comprehension, how you've deviously failed me once again!
Firstly, for those that still seem surprised, let me tell you what the police are. They are the deterrent and clean up crew. They are not bodyguards, they cannot protect you from crime. They cannot stop crime directly, simply punish after the fact.
An example. There are a group of kids outside playing football and screaming extremely loudly when I've got a bit of a headache after working all day. I could go out there right now and kill them all (I don't want to you understand, but its an example). Yes, I could kill everyone one of them and absolutely noone could stop me, certainly not the police. Do I have any weapons? No, but I bet I could create something, plenty of heavy things around, a few kitchen knives etc.
What could the police do? Nothing at all except punish me afterwards. What if I knew a way in which I'd never get caught? Then the police can't do even that.
Now how would that change if everyone had some self defense training or a weapon?... Simple, it wouldn't. I could still do it, I might have to be a bit sneakier if they were playing footie with guns in their pockets but I'd have a good weapon too and I'd have the element of surprise. In fact, if I was the type of person to hurt or kill people then I'd probably lots of guns, big ones, one for each occasion.
What if just wanted to beat them up a bit instead (which is currently a more viable 'solution' as I have no weapons)... well, they'd pull out their weapons, I'd pull out mine and oh look, more dead people.
You all seem to think that weapons for everyone would stop crime. It really wouldn't. Bullethead, you've got guns, great. Now if I was to break in to your house and I <i>knew</i> that the chances are you had weaponry and were able to use it on me then guess what I'd do? The first thing I would do once I broke in would be to kill you while you were sleeping. Your guns are now mine as well. GG, way to protect your family (who are all probably dead too).
For some reason you guys can't seem to see the knock on effects of these things. Giving everyone weapons means giving the criminals <b>BIGGER</b> weapons. It almost forces them to use them.
An example, right now if someone thought it was a good idea to rape someone then they could do it, no weapon or just a knife or whatever. Now what if he knows she got a gun/sword/whatever (doesn't everyone). Simple, he has a bigger weapon or a taser or something and he'd probably kill her afterwards for his own protection.
Someone that is out to break the law will not be stopped by a weapon. Simple as that. You talk about criminals carrying weapons when noone else has them as some kind of viable point but it isnt. A criminal won't challenge you to a dual, it will never be a fair fight, what a criminal will always try to get is an advantage over you. If you are unarmed then all he needs is a knife or to be bigger than you. If you are armed then he needs a bigger weapon. This is why there will always be illegal weapons coming into a country no matter what the gun laws are like.
You guys have to realise that, while in hindsight we can see the results of her case and the polices inaction, it was the only way they could possibly have behaved. The police have to treat you as innocent till proven guilty. The woman musn't take the law in to her own hands ever.
Currently most of you walk around in crowd every day not even realising that every single person you walk past, every single one you see could at any moment kill you and those around them. The more weapons you put in their hands the more likely they will succeed and then I don't care how many weapons you've got, unless you are in a big mech suit while doing your shopping you will die. Nothing can protect you. If I had my way there would be no weapons ever and then the most someone could do would be to create their own unreliable and relatively ineffective weapons. Now <i>that</i> would save lives!